advice to people not taking part in the debates
demolitionred, 01 Nov 2005 15:53:42
I had a munch organiser write and ask for advice on what her group should write to their MPs.
A a brief response I wrote the following, but would welcome other points so I can give her a fuller reply.
That's great news and we have some draft letters on the site at www.backlash-uk.org.uk. They show differnt approaches you can take.
But it is far more important that you get your group to fill in submissions to the consultation document.
If we can just get a few hundred people to do this before the deadline -- now less than a month away we will really make a difference, as traditionally no-one responds to these things.
You can attack these proposals from a freedom of speech angle and so don't need to out yourself. You can also do it anonymously. But please do do it. I can't over-emphasise how important this is.
It is only five questions and we have some advice on the site about this too. You can use points raised in the letters and I'll try and find some more info for you.
In terms of BDSM, the key is that it may not be obvious to an internet surfer that they are about to break a law -- mainly becuase -- as is the case with the OPA -- there are no clear definitions.
Backlash does not beleive though that clarification of what is uillegal to view will help.
We believe there are already sufficient laws to protect the innocent and these new propsed laws will not prevent crime.
By criminalising the viewing of images, the government is accusing us all of being potential rapists and murderers, it also fails to differentiate between looking at staged images and images of real crimes.
Most importantly, this legislation criminalises fantasy, promotes guilt and self-doubt and intends to spread a message that it has the right to decide what sexual fantasies are acceptable.
And this could be just the start. Once they have determined they have a right to decide what people look at, what sites will they target next?
These are just a few thoughts. If you need any more info, let me know.
Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 17:49:13
Dem - mea culpa - as you know. I am back on the case and should let you have a document tomorrow.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I had a munch organiser write and ask for advice on what her group should write to their MPs.
> A a brief response I wrote the following, but would welcome other points so I can give her a fuller reply.
> That's great news and we have some draft letters on the site at www.backlash-uk.org.uk. They show differnt approaches you can take.
> But it is far more important that you get your group to fill in submissions to the consultation document.
> If we can just get a few hundred people to do this before the deadline -- now less than a month away we will really make a difference, as traditionally no-one responds to these things.
> You can attack these proposals from a freedom of speech angle and so don't need to out yourself. You can also do it anonymously. But please do do it. I can't over-emphasise how important this is.
> It is only five questions and we have some advice on the site about this too. You can use points raised in the letters and I'll try and find some more info for you.
> In terms of BDSM, the key is that it may not be obvious to an internet surfer that they are about to break a law -- mainly becuase -- as is the case with the OPA -- there are no clear definitions.
> Backlash does not beleive though that clarification of what is uillegal to view will help.
> We believe there are already sufficient laws to protect the innocent and these new propsed laws will not prevent crime.
> By criminalising the viewing of images, the government is accusing us all of being potential rapists and murderers, it also fails to differentiate between looking at staged images and images of real crimes.
> Most importantly, this legislation criminalises fantasy, promotes guilt and self-doubt and intends to spread a message that it has the right to decide what sexual fantasies are acceptable.
> And this could be just the start. Once they have determined they have a right to decide what people look at, what sites will they target next?
> These are just a few thoughts. If you need any more info, let me know.
clare, 01 Nov 2005 18:39:00
I had just been about to propose that we create a list of bullet points that people can chose from and that we do so by posting a draft on a write board so that we can all add potential bullet points.
If M's mea culpa is that he was producing such a document, that's great, as otherwise I would have made a start on it.
Can I suggest that it goes to write board, time guillotined, so that people coming from different angles can add bullet points that users (coming from different angles) may chose to use.
Author wrote:
> Dem - mea culpa - as you know. I am back on the case and should let you have a document tomorrow.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I had a munch organiser write and ask for advice on what her group should write to their MPs.
> > A a brief response I wrote the following, but would welcome other points so I can give her a fuller reply.
> > That's great news and we have some draft letters on the site at www.backlash-uk.org.uk. They show differnt approaches you can take.
> > But it is far more important that you get your group to fill in submissions to the consultation document.
> > If we can just get a few hundred people to do this before the deadline -- now less than a month away we will really make a difference, as traditionally no-one responds to these things.
> > You can attack these proposals from a freedom of speech angle and so don't need to out yourself. You can also do it anonymously. But please do do it. I can't over-emphasise how important this is.
> > It is only five questions and we have some advice on the site about this too. You can use points raised in the letters and I'll try and find some more info for you.
> > In terms of BDSM, the key is that it may not be obvious to an internet surfer that they are about to break a law -- mainly becuase -- as is the case with the OPA -- there are no clear definitions.
> > Backlash does not beleive though that clarification of what is uillegal to view will help.
> > We believe there are already sufficient laws to protect the innocent and these new propsed laws will not prevent crime.
> > By criminalising the viewing of images, the government is accusing us all of being potential rapists and murderers, it also fails to differentiate between looking at staged images and images of real crimes.
> > Most importantly, this legislation criminalises fantasy, promotes guilt and self-doubt and intends to spread a message that it has the right to decide what sexual fantasies are acceptable.
> > And this could be just the start. Once they have determined they have a right to decide what people look at, what sites will they target next?
> > These are just a few thoughts. If you need any more info, let me know.
demolitionred, 02 Nov 2005 11:58:06
I have created a writeboard
clare, 02 Nov 2005 12:42:16
Where? I can't find link or password
Author wrote:
> I have created a writeboard
Amelie, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:29
cannot find it - where do I look? Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 02 Nov 2005 12:49:29
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:58 AM
>I have created a writeboard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2822
>
demolitionred, 02 Nov 2005 13:37:28
http://writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850
password is backlash-uk
Paul Tavener, 02 Nov 2005 17:39:33
Here's a few good reasons to write about - especialy in answer to question 6
6.Why do you prefer this option?
Because it would criminalise images of legal acts between consenting adults.
Because accidental possession could not be clearly separated from deliberate possession.
Because it would create crimes of context which would be tantamount to thought crimes.
Because it would not be based on evidence but on prejudice and would set a terrible precedent.
Because it would penalise people for their innate sexuality and lead to witch hunts.
Because it would do nothing to help prevent sex crimes.
Because it would encourage fear and intolerance over sexual orientation in society.
Because it would restrict freedom of expression.
Because it would divert valuable police resources away from real crime to real people.
Because it would be an enormous waste of public money.
Author wrote:
> I had a munch organiser write and ask for advice on what her group should write to their MPs.
> A a brief response I wrote the following, but would welcome other points so I can give her a fuller reply.
> That's great news and we have some draft letters on the site at www.backlash-uk.org.uk. They show differnt approaches you can take.
> But it is far more important that you get your group to fill in submissions to the consultation document.
> If we can just get a few hundred people to do this before the deadline -- now less than a month away we will really make a difference, as traditionally no-one responds to these things.
> You can attack these proposals from a freedom of speech angle and so don't need to out yourself. You can also do it anonymously. But please do do it. I can't over-emphasise how important this is.
> It is only five questions and we have some advice on the site about this too. You can use points raised in the letters and I'll try and find some more info for you.
> In terms of BDSM, the key is that it may not be obvious to an internet surfer that they are about to break a law -- mainly becuase -- as is the case with the OPA -- there are no clear definitions.
> Backlash does not beleive though that clarification of what is uillegal to view will help.
> We believe there are already sufficient laws to protect the innocent and these new propsed laws will not prevent crime.
> By criminalising the viewing of images, the government is accusing us all of being potential rapists and murderers, it also fails to differentiate between looking at staged images and images of real crimes.
> Most importantly, this legislation criminalises fantasy, promotes guilt and self-doubt and intends to spread a message that it has the right to decide what sexual fantasies are acceptable.
> And this could be just the start. Once they have determined they have a right to decide what people look at, what sites will they target next?
> These are just a few thoughts. If you need any more info, let me know.
«No Name Set», 02 Nov 2005 18:11:48
- write your own letter. Mass-produced letters carry no weight.
- keep it snappy. MPs get snowed under with paperwork.
- keep it polite and double-check the English.
--
Rosemary
Graham Marsden, 02 Nov 2005 19:18:13
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> Here's a few good reasons to write about - especialy in answer to question 6
>
> 6.Why do you prefer this option?
>
> Because accidental possession could not be clearly separated from
> deliberate possession.
Also because such a law would effectively require everyone who has
downloaded BDSM related adult material to trawl through every single
picture they have and ask themselves "would a Policeman or a Juror
consider this image to be 'extreme' or 'abhorrent'" and then delete it
just on the off-chance that it might be considered that way.
This is a totally subjective decision and impossible to police sensibly.
Cheers,
Graham.